{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f114\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f115\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f117\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f118\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f119\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f120\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f121\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f122\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid84698
\rsid877676\rsid9834672\rsid10120123}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6775;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA}{\author rrama}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2004\mo9\dy15\hr16\min2}{\revtim\yr2006\mo5\dy3\hr14\min15}{\version3}{\edmins3}
{\nofpages3}{\nofwords1190}{\nofchars6783}{\*\company Judicial Department}{\nofcharsws7958}{\vern16391}}\paperw11908\paperh16833\margl1440\margr1440 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot9834672 \fet0\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid9834672\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain 
\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\pvpara\posx0\posy0\absw9029\nowrap\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\insrsid9834672 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid84698 1}}}{
\insrsid9834672 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid9834672 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid9834672 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid84698 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 AT SUVA
\par ON APPEAL FROM THE FIJI COURT OF APPEAL
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 CIVIL APPEAL NO.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 CBV0002/1996S
\par (Fiji Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 ABU0064/92S)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 BETWEEN:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 ANTHONY FREDERICK STEPHENS
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Appellant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 AND:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Respondent
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par Coram:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 The Hon. Sir Timoci Tuivaga, President
\par The Rt. Hon. Lord Cooke of Thorndon
\par The Hon. Sir Anthony Mason
\par 
\par Hearing:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 12 March, 1998
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Counsel:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Mr. R. Douglas Q.C., Mr. G.P. Lala and
\par Mr. K. Vuataki for the Appellant
\par Mr. D. Singh, for the Respondent
\par 
\par Judgment:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 6 April, 1998
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 JUDGMENT OF SIR ANTHONY MASON
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123 As the joint judgment of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
the Chief Justice and Lord Cooke of Thorndon has related the astonishing saga surrounding the appellant\rquote s claim to enforce the deed of settlement dated 17 September 1992, I am able very briefly to express my reasons for allowing the appeal.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 In the light of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 the issues sought to be raised by the parties, which included issues of fact, the Court of Appeal was right in concluding that the case was not appropriate to be commenced}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 by}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 or}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123 i}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 ginating}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
summons and that it would have been preferable if the High Court Judge (Scott J.) had ordered under Order 28 r. 9 (1) that the proceedings should continue as if begun by writ.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 At first instance, Scott J. had acknowledged}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
that ascertainment of the legal status of the deed could well involve the resolution of contested issues of fact but nevertheless concluded that he was able to determine the sole issue before him on the basis of facts that were not in issue.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
The Court of Appeal took a similar view, though by no means completely agreeing with the reasons advanced by Scott J. for concluding that the Attorney-General had neither actual nor ostensible authority for entering into the deed of settlement.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 The Court o
f Appeal considered, rightly in my view, that there was strength in the submission that the power of the Attorney-General to enter into the deed was not to be determined by the provisions of the Constitution dealing with finance or the matter of Parliamen
tary appropriation, but by the answer to the question whether he had authority to enter into the need.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
The Court of Appeal went on to hold that he had neither actual nor ostensible authority.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 The two actions brought by the appellant which were the subject 
of the settlement purportedly effected by the deed were actions brought against the Attorney-General as nominal defendant of the State.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
The State Proceedings Act (Cap. 24) provides that the Attorney-General shall be the nominal defendant in all proceedings against the state.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 The Court of Appeal considered, however, that the effect of the statute is not to make the Attorney-General the agent of the State for the purp}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123 o}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 se of making contracts in respect of matters arising out of activities of other departments of government.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 In this case, the claims made by the appellant in the actions arose}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 out}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 wrongful}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 detention by}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 the}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Police}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 and}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 it appears}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 that}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 the Prime Minister was 
Minister for Home Affairs and as Minister for Home Affairs had departmental responsibility for the Police.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
This approach to the issue of authority attributes little significance to the fact that the Attorney-General is, pursuant to statute, the actual defendant in the proceedings, even if he is properly described as nominal defendant.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Historically the Attorney-General acted as the representative of the Crown in the courts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 In the case of Fiji, the Constitution provides that the Attorney-General is the principal legal adviser to the government (s.86) and the effect of the State}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Proceedings Act seems to make the Attorney-General the State\rquote s representative in the Courts.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 In this situation, it is certainly arguable that, as the defendant in the two actions, he 
had authority to conduct the proceedings and, if need be, to bring them to a conclusion by settling them, though there is also a question, assuming the existence of an authority to settle, whether it extends to matters outside the actions themselves, that
 is, to all the matters for which the deed makes provision and, if not, what the legal effect of that excess of authority would be.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
What I have just said is enough to cast some doubt on the basis on which the Court of Appeal had disposed of the case and to reinforce the impressions voiced by the courts below that the trial should have proceeded as if it had commenced by writ.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Then all issues relating to actual and implied authority would have been clearly identified and dealt with as a matter of oral and do
cumentary evidence in the ordinary course without any need to make findings of fact on the basis of the fragmentary materials in the affidavits.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Although the appellant is partly at least the author of his own misfortune in choosing to proceed by way of or
iginating summons, the frailties of that mode of proceeding 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par were recognised by the courts below.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Despite that recognition, it was thought}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 that the case could be resolved by focusing on some issues to the exclusion of others, a course which, to my mind has proved unsatisfactory.
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
The question then is whether the Court should dismiss the appeal for a reason not considered by the courts below, namely that the appellant did not in his answering affidavit contradict the statements in Mr. Seru\rquote s}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 affidavit of 19
 November 1992 that the appellant told him that he would not seek to enforce any settlement on the government, that the deed was merely to enable him to obtain finance and that once the financial deal was arranged he would withdraw his claim against the g
overnment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
In response to questions from this Court, counsel for the respondent asserted that the respondent had relied on the failure of the appellant to deny these statements as an answer to the claim that the deed was enforceable.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 I do not doubt that thi
s was so in the sense that the representations were seen as a collateral warranty, that being the character given to them by the respondent in the High Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 But the appellant\rquote s}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
failure to answer a case based on the representations seems not to have been pressed as an answer to the appellant\rquote s case before the primary judge and the Court of Appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 There is no reference in the judgments of the courts below to the argument as one that had been presented for their determination.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 That being so, I do not consider that the argument is one to which this Court should now give effect.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 It is, of course, well settled that a respondent to an appeal may support the judgment in his favour in the court below by taking a point of
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 law not previously argued so long}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 as}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 there}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 is}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 no}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 possibility that had the point been taken evidence could have been given which would have prevented the point from succeeding (}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Louinder v Leis }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 (1982) 149 CLR 509, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Coulton v Holcombe 
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 (1986) 152 CLR 1).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 The present case, however, is one in which that 
possibility has not been controverted.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
We do not know why it is that the appellant did not file an appropriate answering affidavit; nor do we know why the point was not argued by the respondent before the primary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  judge and the Court of Appeal.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 On the fact
s as we know them, the appellant faces a difficult task in establishing that the deed is enforceable.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
Apart from the issue of authority and the representation, which it is claimed, induced the Attorney-General}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
to sign the deed, there are other questions including the question whether the appellant believed that Mr. Seru had authority, as well as the question whether the deed is inconsistent with public policy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 But these circumstances do not justify dismissal of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
the appeal on a ground not dealt with by the courts when the point was not agreed by the respondent and may be affected by evidence which could poss}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123 ibly be given by the appellant.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \ql \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 I would}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 allow}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10120123  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 the appeal and make orders enabling the matter to proceed bef
ore the High Court as if commenced by writ.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Sir Anthony Mason
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10120123 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }{\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 Solicitors:
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9834672\charrsid10120123 G.P. Lala & Associates, Suva and Vuataki, Prasad & Associates,
\par Lautoka, for the Appellant
\par Attorney-General\rquote s Chambers, Suva for the Respondent
\par }}